Congresswoman on Palin's "Hit List" shot

Hudsonvalley82 said:

What is actually being done here is a widespread addressing of hate speak, and why it is a bad thing (other than being politically useless). If you want hate speak to disappear, now is the time to push your ideals.

Click to expand...

it is very sad and shameful that it took a tragedy like this to really put on trial the over-the-top messaging from the last campaign. sure, there was some mentions and some discussion about the crosshairs, the second amendment remedies, the bullets not ballots, the don't retreat but instead reload as it went on. but it was never a serious discussion.

i am disgusted by those who still defend these over-the-top tactics and fail to see the very obvious differences between free speech and hate speech. every one of them makes me shake my head in disgust at how callous some among us are. shame on these people, they know who they are.

thank you for posting this hudson.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hudsonvalley82 again.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

what makes this all so much sadder is that we all saw something like this happening from miles away. putting literal targets on offices of congress people, telling people to not retreat, reload...second amendment remedies...carrying automatic weapons to rallies...pelosi spoke of the heated environment months ago, recalled harvey milk.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i feel that this moment crystallizes the previous concerns held by many that calls for violence, no matter how craftily-worded, should be condemned by all immediately, and without vacillation. the type of heated rhetoric i've cited, no matter what side it comes from, leads to practical consequences in the real world...like the mother who will never hold her 9 year old daughter again.

Click to expand...

Johnnyorganic said:

Crosshairs are a metaphor.

Click to expand...

we wouldn't be having this discussion if it started and stopped at crosshairs.

it was crosshairs.
it was second amendment remedies.
it was bullets, not ballots.
it was don't retreat, reload.
it was "get on target for victory in november. help remove gabrielle giffords from office. shoot a fully automatic m16 with jesse kelly"

you want to know what is more disgusting to me than people that are happy to politicize this? (which, btw, i haven't found many of them)

it is the speed with which you got on the counterattack, your selective defense of hate speech, and your immediate re-escalation of anti-immigration, anti-minority rhetoric. just fucking disgusting. i really thought more of you.

undertheice said:

how's that for anti-illegal immigration rhetoric.

Click to expand...

that sounds like you espouse a conspiracy theory that mexico is intentionally and purposely fucking its citizens so they will 'invade' the us.

and it is nuttier than a payday bar.

if your theory were at all capable of having even a remotely close brush with the reality on the ground, mexico would be destroying its own infrastructure and exacerbating its problems rather than trying to solve them, fledgling 94 year old nation they are.

get back to me when you have a grasp on reality.

UncleBuck said:

i am disgusted by those who still defend these over-the-top tactics and fail to see the very obvious differences between free speech and hate speech.

Click to expand...

the difference between hate speech and free speech, much like the difference between patriotism and xenophobia or legitimate protest and sedition, is all a matter of which side of the fence you're sitting on. if your guy says it, it's free speech. if their guy says it, it's hate speech.

UncleBuck said:

we wouldn't be having this discussion if it started and stopped at crosshairs.

it was crosshairs.
it was second amendment remedies.
it was bullets, not ballots.
it was don't retreat, reload.
it was "get on target for victory in november. help remove gabrielle giffords from office. shoot a fully automatic m16 with jesse kelly"

you want to know what is more disgusting to me than people that are happy to politicize this? (which, btw, i haven't found many of them)

it is the speed with which you got on the counterattack, your selective defense of hate speech, and your immediate re-escalation of anti-immigration, anti-minority rhetoric. just fucking disgusting. i really thought more of you.

Click to expand...

And to think we should know who we are.

This discussion DID start and stop with cross-hairs. Palin's hit list, remember? Read the thread topic for clarification.

I simply followed the rabbit trail.

Has it been established that the suspect is a Teabagger? Far from it.

If pro-minority groups also use extremist language, it is my fault for pointing it out?

If I counter that Leftists employ hate speech, too; does it naturally follow that I must embrace it?

I couldn't give two shits what you think of me.

So you abhor angry words which MIGHT incite voilence. Are you also willing to denounce Van Jones and Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill?

If you think this is simply an issue for the Right to address you simply reveal your own partisan prejudice.

Johnnyorganic said:

No more pathetic and absolutely indefensible than politicizing a tragedy.

Click to expand...

undertheice said:

it's time the liberal loons realized that conservatism is not an extremist stance, but that the extremism of the left has been mainstreamed by the shepherds of that flock. the idea of individual liberty is not a fringe idea, it is at the very core of the ideals this country was founded upon. the radical, pathetic and absolutely indefensible position is that we should be forced to give up the idea of individual liberty for the sake of corrupt governmental control, an expanding welfare state and this prissy ideals of political correctness.

Click to expand...

undertheice, you are the poster child for 'pathetic' and 'indefensible', as defined by johnnyo. you jumped on the first chance you got to spout off about your conpiracy theory that mexico is subverting its citizens to invade the US, now you are jumping on the chance, pre-emptively no less, to get your licks in at what you perceive as left wing conspiracy to abolish free speech.

take your long winded purple prose and go. come back when you have a shred of decency in that pathetic mind of yours.

undertheice said:

any sane person would realize that terminology like "hit list" only means that those people should be removed from office

Click to expand...

too bad that not every one who hears all the incendiary rhetoric is sane, and that they lets schizophrenics buy 9mm glocks in arizona.

undertheice said:

this isn't "hateful rhetoric"

Click to expand...

subtle, crafty calls to violence are not at all hateful?

again, please go. come back when you have a shred of sanity or common sense about you.

UncleBuck said:

undertheice, you are the poster child for 'pathetic' and 'indefensible', as defined by johnnyo. you jumped on the first chance you got to spout off about your conpiracy theory that mexico is subverting its citizens to invade the US, now you are jumping on the chance, pre-emptively no less, to get your licks in at what you perceive as left wing conspiracy to abolish free speech.

take your long winded purple prose and go. come back when you have a shred of decency in that pathetic mind of yours.



too bad that not every one who hears all the incendiary rhetoric is sane, and that they lets schizophrenics buy 9mm glocks in arizona.



subtle, crafty calls to violence are not at all hateful?

again, please go. come back when you have a shred of sanity or common sense about you.

Click to expand...

I can't take credit for that, it was Ink the World who originally used those words, and who I was answering when I used them in return.

Credit where credit is due.

Relating someone talking about a pitchfork and someone talking about bullets, targeting, and defending yourself from tyranny is akin to relating apples to motor oil. Not even close.

Thanks for the effort though.

undertheice said:

the difference between hate speech and free speech...is all a matter of which side of the fence you're sitting on.

Click to expand...

BULL. SHIT.

and you should know it.

free speech, like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, has consequences.

when you whip people into a frenzy and tell them that bullets will work if ballots don't, and put crosshairs on a map while telling them not to retreat, but to instead RELOAD!...that has consequences.

like a ticking time bomb. it is only a matter of time before the wrong fucking nut shoots up a school, or a public arena, or a politician.

i could understand a dipshit like you uttering it on a board like this and not having it be a problem, but at the very top of the campaign to the whole of the populace using national media?

well fuck, can't see *any* way that might scream 'bad consequences'.

no one is trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. we want the ones, especially at the very top, to use it responsibly.

crafty and subtle incitement to violence against public officials is not a responsible use.

Thats a touch too convenient of a stance to take in this situation. Normally I would agree with you, but I am sure that VAST majorities of the population see the difference with this one. Hate speech takes people lives.

What you're talking about is posturing and rhetoric, not hate speak.
Patriotic is being proud of your nation, Xenophobic is hating everyone else's nation. You see, there is an edge there. There is nothing of malice in being patriotic, however, there is malice in being xenophobic.

Political banter is what I would consider the normal discourse, "its not me its the other guy." Political banter is rooted in some form of sanity, and is used in poising arguments and issues in a beneficial light.
Hate-speak is rooted in the insane. Tapping into the boisterous inner hate that we all have, and harnessing to for a political gain. This particular form of hate speak is trying to be passed off under the guise of sarcasm, metaphor, or satire. Unfortunately, if that is true, there was a harsh miscalculation of the general publics prowess for literary irony, it was taken literally. That is the risk associated with speaking publicly.

Hope that clears that up...

undertheice said:

the difference between hate speech and free speech, much like the difference between patriotism and xenophobia or legitimate protest and sedition, is all a matter of which side of the fence you're sitting on. if your guy says it, it's free speech. if their guy says it, it's hate speech.

Click to expand...

Johnnyorganic said:

This discussion DID start and stop with cross-hairs.

Click to expand...

yeah, right.

like i said, if 'crosshairs' was the only tactic employed, we would not be having this discussion.

and you know it.

ComeOnKip said:

Relating someone talking about a pitchfork and someone talking about bullets, targeting, and defending yourself from tyranny is akin to relating apples to motor oil. Not even close.

Thanks for the effort though.

Click to expand...

So a call for angry mobs to take to the streets using pitchforks as weapons is just fine with you?

She did not mention one pitchfork. Her statement was in the plural.

BTW, pitchforks is a METAPHOR for mob violence.

Are Proggies getting dumber, or am I getting smarter?

UncleBuck said:

yeah, right.

like i said, if 'crosshairs' was the only tactic employed, we would not be having this discussion.

and you know it.

Click to expand...

The premise of this thread is that Sarah Palin is responsible for the attack on Congresswoman Giffords because her PAC used crosshairs to target her district in the mid-term elections.

It spells it out in the title.

And you know it.

Johnnyorganic said:

So a call for angry mobs to take to the streets using pitchforks as weapons is just fine with you?

She did not mention one pitchfork. Her statement was in the plural.

BTW, pitchforks is a METAPHOR for mob violence.

Are Proggies getting dumber, or am I getting smarter?

Click to expand...

Uhm, yea, its still PITCHFORKS. It's not 'bullets not ballots', it's not 'fight for and die for' rhetoric, it's not bringing up the second amendment every five seconds. But you seem distinctly unable to separate the repetitious drum beating of guns, gun rights and shooting people with McCaskill and Jones' limited slip ups. So don't worry, you're definitely not getting smarter

And no, McCaskill and Jones are examples of dangerous rhetoric on the left as well, but when compared in size, frequency and content against the TP shit, well, there is no comparison. But no, I don't think its okay that they said those things either.

Johnnyorganic said:

The premise of this thread is that Sarah Palin is responsible for the attack on Congresswoman Giffords because her PAC used crosshairs to target her district in the mid-term elections.

It spells it out in the title.

And you know it.

Click to expand...

and we all know, as per ages old tradition handed down to us by elders on high and etched in our most revered parchments, that all discussion within a thread *must* be limited in scope to the title of said thread.

are you getting dumber, or am i getting more smart(-assed)?

Johnnyorganic said:

The premise of this thread is that Sarah Palin is responsible for the attack on Congresswoman Giffords because her PAC used crosshairs to target her district in the mid-term elections.

It spells it out in the title.

And you know it.

Click to expand...

I thought being pot smokers we would be able to dig deeper than that...I assumed this was to start a discussion on hate speech that could incite fools and nuts to kill a innocent baby all in the name of WHAT??? again if we can not learn lessons from tragedies then what can we learn lessons from..????...do we really think that this guy just said hey I want to just go and kill...hell no listening to all this bullshit gives these nuts excuses and reasons to do this type of shit and really I'm starting to think that only another nut would even try to defend this crap in the aftermath...I

Wow its just like the constitution argument. You are so valiant in trying to keep this thread in the direction of its founding father, that we should be reminded of its title in order to keep this conversation on the topic at hand. Just like the old "founding fathers" and "constitution" reference. Your afraid of where this is going, so throw it back to its roots. Come on, JO, don't be afraid to take a walk with us...

Johnnyorganic said:

The premise of this thread is that Sarah Palin is responsible for the attack on Congresswoman Giffords because her PAC used crosshairs to target her district in the mid-term elections.

It spells it out in the title.

And you know it.

Click to expand...

Ok, I started this thread and I can tell you what I was thinking when I typed that. The only facts I knew at the time was that she was shot, and that she had appeared in the ad. I knew nothing about the shooter. I admit that one can draw a conclusion from the title, but all it does is state a fact. I did not know whether, or even suspect at the time that the shooter acted on that. Really!

Thank you for starting this thread, it has been fun

tet1953 said:

Ok, I started this thread and I can tell you what I was thinking when I typed that. The only facts I knew at the time was that she was shot, and that she had appeared in the ad. I knew nothing about the shooter. I admit that one can draw a conclusion from the title, but all it does is state a fact. I did not know whether, or even suspect at the time that the shooter acted on that. Really!

Click to expand...

quoting from sarah palin's facebook page, dated march 28, 2010 -- three days after the crosshair image was published:

"In the battle, set your sights on next season’s targets! From the shot across the bow – the first second’s tip-off – your leaders will be in the enemy’s crosshairs*, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won’t win only playing defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win."